The people involved in running the system are the people best placed to improve it – constantly – since they may often be best placed for problem location and have the greatest amount of information above and beyond that provided by the monitoring.
(Taylor-Fitzgibbon, 1996 pp. 50-51)
An additional point is made by Argyris (1991) who reasons that, professionals above all, become very skilled in resisting learning. He suggests that the very success of professionals in achieving their position weakens their capacity to think critically of their own performance, to deal with criticism and mistakes, and to dismantle a faulty self-image that acts as a barrier between self and accurate self-assessment. When this phenomenon is compounded with the perceived notions of outcome driven control systems being imposed upon organisations the humanist behavioural quality agenda losses its impetus. Perhaps the use of performance indicators as a goal to behaving appropriately to criterion driven expectations would be the answer to these problems.
Quality when perceived as a “top down” hierarchical model supports the notion of an absolutionist approach and that quality as a non-negotiable entity aligned with Plato’s absolute standard paradigm for which organisations can only aspire to conform to, and has little to do with behavioural aspects when attempting to implement quality initiatives within organisations.
However, there are other sources of external influences imposed on educational organisations that serve to drive the quality agenda. Sallis (1996) suggests various sources of pressure in attempting to achieve or improve quality.
- the moral imperative – link with the customer
- the professional imperative – link with the professional role of educators
- the competitive imperative – the link with competitors
- the accountability imperative – the link with constituent groups
(Sallis, 1996, pp 4-5)
Hodgkinson (2000) makes the point that the current discourse around education in England is dominated by economic instrumentalism. This being a very prescribed doctrine based on the term he uses as “Technical Rationality” and “Instrumentalism Rationality” derived from the work of Habermas (1972) and analysed further by Grundy (1987), Held (1980) and Gibson (1986). Which in essence is
Instrumentalism rationality represents the preoccupation with means in preference to ends. It is concerned with method and efficiency rather than with purposes… It is the divorce of fact from value, and the preference, in that divorce, for fact.
(Gibson 1986, p.7)
Hodgkinson (2000) makes the point that Technical Rationalism assumes that individuals are managed as if they behave like parts of a machine and that educating individuals can be seen as a systematic production process. Hodgkinson (2000) argues further that technical rationalism regime sees teachers as artisans to be controlled, rather than professionals to be empowered. Shaw (1990) also makes the point to support Hodgkinson, suggesting it is the British Government that is in effect the employer for most teachers and that once the decisions are made, a technical process of instruction from the top, supported by a crude structure of carrots and sticks related to funding and league tables, will be enough to make the changes an effective reality.
For the Government, technical rationality offers the illusion of a simple solution, or more accurately, series of solutions, which is consistent with broader market and tax cutting policy objectives. Turning education into a technical process, where quality depends upon responses of teachers to measure outcomes that they are set deflects attention from deeper societal causes of inadequate educational achievement, effectively blaming the victim for their own difficulties. The creation of a stratified society is a point made by Tonnies, which is covered later.
Coffield (1999) also reiterates in a similar manner, the two flagship initiatives of the government’s strategy for Lifelong Learning – the University for Industry and Individual Learning Accounts welcome as they are, both transfer responsibility for remaining “employable” onto individuals, who do not have the power to remove the structural barriers which prevent them from learning. Coffield (1999) gives an example. He suggests that young staff with young children working in the National Health Service who are not taking the opportunity to train is interpreted as evidence of lack of commitment, for which examples and scenario’s of this could be easily replicated within the further Education sector.
The Quality Intention
The intention of these external quality systems can also be seen to encourage and embed improvement and innovation, with everyone involved owning the process and the product. Real change, particularly in staff attitudes are not likely to be achieved solely through working towards imposed outcomes.
For example, outcomes and results could be construed as being superficial, bringing about the “façade phenomenon” where cosmetic differences mask the fact that little has really changed (Ewens, D. and Watters, K LSDA 2002). Employees may be either unaware or uninterested in organisational initiatives if they have not been brought on-board in the quality improvement process.
The quality imperative has sometimes been defined as meeting the externally imposed standards set by government or agency targets and benchmarks. These external goals are set or imposed upon teaching professionals, who are engaged in carrying out external expectations. O’Neil (2002) suggests that in doing so, miss-trust can be generated between these parties, those that set up the environment of targets and league tables i.e. Governments and those charged with implementation and working within the system i.e. teaching professionals and other practioners. The government faces accountability from its electorate to provide value for money in public sector services but further issues emerge when applying external expectations. Sherlock (2002) makes the point,
It could be suggested that FE is predominantly a local based provision, in many respects individual ambitions are often and sometimes very tightly circumscribed by what is on their doorstep. However in the background is a set of issues, which the government has made a great deal of play on that is a world in which there are no free launches. There are plenty of people competing in exactly the same arena as the United Kingdom, and in some respects doing rather in better. The list of countries in that situation will carry on increasing, so one of the driver for excellence has got to be global competitiveness, human capital in the fullest sense of the notion, the success of social democracies in northwest Europe in securing the health and longevity of their citizens, as well as their high educational levels is part of that human capital argument.
It could be argued that this is not just about quality improvement but economics, which in itself does not necessarily ensure quality but serves to feed the thirst for more evidence of quality practice. Here there is little room for trust of the local professional or practioner and has the potential to undermine the creditability of a professional role, which is actually positioned at the centre of the process.
The government process of evidence acquirement could then be viewed by some as suspicious and un-welcome, only serving as a process of justification rather than an instrument of quality improvement. Jackson, (1995) argues that interested parties, which in this case are the voter and taxpayer, in part influence any performance measurement system. It is this factor, that could be argued, distinguishes the public sector from the private sector, the private sector is driven more by shareholders and customers.
Although the alternative argument has been put forward that students and employers are the customers of Further Education Colleges (FEC’s), and recent changes have increased Further Education Colleges accountability to both the Government and the public. Any one wishing to understand the complex issues surrounding the quality agenda must be clear with regard to how and where the issue of quality has come from.
It could be argued that many quality initiatives were born from industrial origins for which they were taken. Hodgkinson (2000) states that initiatives such as Kaisen are taken from Japanese quality concepts of a constant search for continual improvement with each factory operatives empowered with the responsibility and share in the drive for the improvement. Within a factory context and under the system of Kaisen, making for example motor vehicles, the end of line quality inspections are unnecessary and regarded as unhelpful. Every operative working on the track is responsible for the quality of what they do and are organised into teams/cells who work within and together in order to find ways to cut-costs and search for ways to improve quality at the same time. This model is highly responsive and efficient to change. I would suggest that it is an empowering model relying upon professional values and readily transfers to FEC’s.
Hodgkinson (2000) argues this differs markedly from the traditional model of Fordism. This being a model of industrial management comprising of a top-down bureaucratic and hierarchical model of control, once prevalent in a stable market place where market demands can be predicted and planned for, whilst achieving a technical efficient organisational model. Far from the unstable situation education finds itself in today. It does manage to be successful in one respect, namely preventing the teacher from seeing the whole picture!
However, West-Burnham (2002) argues the point that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a model for total quality in education. He makes the point that a quality lesson is one which children or adults understands rather than one which teacher feels meets their criteria. A quality lesson either in a school or college is determined in terms of fitness for purpose rather than an external expectation of how things should be.
The Quality Imperative in Further Education
The Department of education and skill (DES) together with the Learning Skills Council (LSC) have put in place an interventionist strategy to ensure transformation of the sector through targeted and benchmarked expectations. They are striving to reduce any perceived poor provision and seek improve adequate provision, so that all learners receive high quality education and training. From the view point of the learner, poor quality FE and training is unacceptable. Hodge (2002) suggests that fixing the problem quickly is essential, if the learner is not to miss out on life opportunities.
It is the Governments perception that there is something is wrong in FE and undoubtedly there is pockets of poor quality in education and training and this is unacceptable. The government uses the learner’s perspective to legitimise the necessity and urgency for action. Many Instrumentalist characteristics are called upon to maximise the pressure for something transformational to happen
However, Hodge (2002), states that many good things are to be found within the post 16 sector.
- Excellence is out there – many colleges have achieved FEFC accredited status and gained beacon awards and the trend continuing with COVE pathfinder status.
- More people than ever are using their local colleges
- Colleges are responding to the diverse needs and goals of learners, often shaped by changing employment needs
- Over 90% of colleges teaching is graded satisfactory or better at inspection
- Self-assessment is working well in many institutions.
- Good progress has been made in removing the long tail of poor performance in colleges.
Hodge (2002) reminds us further that there is no room for complacency. The first 60 inspections undertaken under the new Common Inspection Framework indicates that FE colleges have some way to go in achieving consistent quality. Four out of ten colleges need to be re-inspected in one or more curriculum areas. Retention rates are stable at an average of 78% but a 22% drop out rate is still too high for the government targets. Success or achievement rates are up 4-5% since 1997 and now stand at 56%. However a 50-50 chance for a learner to succeed in completing a qualification is still not good enough.
Colleges will be required to continually provide evidence that they are retaining students and that achievement levels are being sustained throughout the sector before the government is satisfied with target levels within the post-16 sector. Perry (2002) states; the government increasingly believes (to use a cliché) that “one size fits all” in public services. They feel that we need distinctive approaches to the needs of those the service sector serve. Quality measures will need to reflect key domains that are presently meeting all stakeholder expectations.
Management Implications
The massive amount of change has implications for the management of FEC’s and education as a whole. It would seem that the governmental push for quality as an absolute standard is at direct odds with the conservative nature of FEC’s. I suggest that Aristotelian notions of behavioural quality sit more comfortably within education and it is within this quality paradigm that the most progress can be made in achieving the expectations of learners and teachers alike. Most, if not all educators are keen to ensure that their students’ experience is a positive and meaningful one. However it is a commonly held belief that satisfaction or happiness is transient and is ever decreasing with repetition and can only be recaptured with new and novel stimuli.
Tonnies (Truzzi 1971) notions of Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft suggest that the idea of absolutist and behavioural quality are at odds with each other and lead to a certain amount tension and the inevitability of the resulting behaviour; the consensual and political of society (Gesellschaft) verses the community, informal relationships (Gemeinschaft). Whilst I acknowledge that these concepts are not contemporary they do translate well to the modern educational setting of the imposed measures and inevitable change of government against the informal professional community of teachers.
The latter body has traditions and a code of ethics based upon what Tonnies (Truzzi 1971) refers to as ‘mores’ morals or ideals. However, unlike other traditional professions these mores are imposed upon the body and are legitimised by the power of the state e.g. LLUK (formerly FENTO). This puts practioners in a state of dual morality, political will over individual agency. Much of the imposed code of ethics is undisputed but interwoven are controls and measures that are for political and instrumental means done under the name of efficiency and usefulness. Tonnies suggests, that as the state frees itself further from custom and traditions it becomes easier to implement change and this situation is, some would say, the thin end of the wedge. This is evident with the exponential rise in new management positions dealing exclusively with change management and subsequent quality implications. If allowed to go unchecked, as Tonnies suggests, Gesellschaft can lead to the world as one big city where the upper strata or class become the ruling class and set the standards for the lower strata to conform to. This certainly has resonance with Plato’s republic and a divided society.
Now this may all seem a little alarmist and far removed from the FE college staff room but the imposed change and unrest it causes has to be managed. Empirical and casual evidence would seem to suggest that good teachers are promoted away from what they are good at, namely teaching. This suggests that good teachers will make good managers. This puts the teacher/manager in a dichotomy. The manager now has to learn a different set of skills and implement imposed change within his or her peer group that may be at odds with their personal beliefs and values. As mentioned earlier for change to permeate, a system of belief has to exist something that does not always occur when change is externally imposed. If professionals resist change as suggested by Argyris (1991), do you have managers to manage and teachers to teach OR follow Taylor-Fitzgibbon’s (1996) suggestion that those in the thick of it, so to speak, are best placed to deal with the issues and achieve success. In reality this binary would have various shades but there are no easy solutions but I would suggest that the latter is the most palatable.
However, there are new measures of quality being introduced that recognise that statistics and emotionally detached figures are not the whole story. For example there are now measures of distance travelled and soft outcomes utilising qualitative data, opinions and subjective evidence. These I believe are a better indication of what has been achieved and the transformation that occurs in students as a result of good teaching. This is something that as a teacher I can manage in myself and when required to in others. These new measures are as yet unexamined by inspection agencies, but I am confident that the good work done will be recognised.
Conclusion
It would be true to conclude that the aspect of quality in further education and training and specifically teaching and learning in a further education college is today deeply regulated and monitored. Few colleges these days are without quality managers who are charged with leading teams of observers and good practitioners, emphasising measurement and improvement on teaching and learning activities and the implementation of outcomes and statistics that go to feed the quality systems into the management process, a situation that looks set to grow. There is a consensus, however that FEC’s are looking at quality by how successful students stay on course and achieve qualifications, jobs and university entry. These can be interpreted as outcomes. This report is suggesting that the measure of quality needs also to be viewed in a bipolar method that investigates aspects to include in terms of inputs – budgets, staff, resources and equipment – Teaching and learning strategies, effectiveness and efficiency of links between educational agencies. That said there are good grounds for thinking FEC’s investment in quality has paid off – partly about new attitudes. The self-assessment process has made it respectable to admit that we all have areas in need of improvement.
Improving the reliability in the methods of information utilisation has enabled FEC’s to measure good practice and what needs to be continually improved. The increase of cross-college and systematic approach to quality means there are no “no-go” areas.
Strengths and weaknesses of performance can be evidenced rather than being asserted. Asking students, staff and employers what they think and feel about college services has added a consumer focus and commercial dimension.
Future trends for the quality agenda will most certainly be a drive for greater coherence, as FEC’s increasingly consolidate their continual improvement activities such as; course audit, benchmarking, performance indicators, strategic target planning, self-assessment reviews, verification and validation inspections, customer surveys into a single over-arching approach. This is where the growing enthusiasm for key quality framework initiatives such as European Excellence Model, Investors in People and ISO 9000 promise will, reconciles a colleges’ need to integrate processes with the public desire for world class standards. Two further changes would be beneficial and are beginning to surface. One would be to shift from a focus on failure to one based on success. Increasingly colleges are using a positive approach to analyse their annual round of self-assessments and results. FE Managers are interested in finding out what went wrong, and stopping it; but they are also looking at success against difficult and various circumstances, analysing how it happened, and what they can learn from it as a form of “appreciative inquiry”. Surely this must represent the beginnings of a learning organisation, as described by Senge (1990) that is in its infancy and despite the external expectations and targets imposed upon them. To blindly go through a process of quality assurance, for example; such as a series of lesson observations conducted on staff and not learn from the results, such as how to increase the effectiveness of the learner, would be deemed as an unnecessary activity by FE managers. The less complicated issues for improvement such as dispensing with poor practice are now a commonly accepted aim for all who work in the FE sector. Further progress will demand that college managers need knowledge of effective successive practices.
Attention to what works will be all the more prevalent to the success of providing relevant and quality orientated courses for the future clientele of further education colleges. FE institutions are already well under way in designing and developing their own improvement strategies rather than conform to existing national standards and benchmarking. In many cases FEC’s are learning to exceed expectations not only of governments and agency demands but also of their own student and customer clientele.
The second change considered as beneficial would be a shift in emphasis to what is important rather than what is judged to be “excellent”. FEC’s need to be clear about what desperately needs to be done – such as support for students with basic skills needs, getting disabled students into jobs, moving students who originate from a low socio-economic background into university, creating second chances for the disaffected and disengaged and seek ways that work effectively. These major issues listed must add to the value in the quality of education and training and be just as important as measuring and monitoring the cost of quality in education.
References
Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching Smart People how to learn, in Harvard Business Review, May-June 1991, pp 99-109
Coffield, F. (1999). 'Breaking the Consensus: Lifelong Learning as Social Control. in British Educational Research Journal Vol25 No4 pp 479-499.
Ewens, D. and Watters, K. (2002) Using quality schemes in adult and community learning - a guide for managers. Leicester: NIACE
Gibson, R. (1986). Critical Theory and Education. . London: Hodder & Stoughton
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London: The
Falmer Press.
Habermas, J (1972) Knowledge and Human interests. (J. Shapiro, Trans.).
London: Heinemann
Held, D. (1987). Models of Democracy. California: Stanford
University Press.
Hodgkinson, P. (2000) Who wants to be a Social Engineer? In Sociological Research Vol5 No1
Hodge, M. (2002) Learning and Skills Research in Raising Standards in Post-16 Learning Vol5 number 2.
Jackson, K. (October December 1995) Editorial: performance measurement – Public Money and Management Vol15 No. 4.
O’Neil, O (2002) ‘A Question of Trust’ [WWW] (10 June 2004)
Perry, A (2002) Quality assurance in Colleges. What have we really gained? in Quality in Practice, Vol5 No 2.
Sallis, E. (1996) Total Quality Management in Education, London, Kogan Page.
Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday
Shaw, P (1990) Making Sense of the New Academic Principles. London: Routledge
Sherlock, D ALI (2002) Confronting our weaknesses in Quality in Practice, Vol5 No 2.
Tam, W. M. and Cheng, Y.C. (1996) Staff development for school organisational quality: implications of multi-models, in Training for Quality, Vol. 4 No 4 pp 16-24
Taylor-Fitzgibbon, C. (1996) Monitoring Education: Indicators, Quality and Effectiveness, London Cassell.
Truzzi, M. (1971) Sociology: The Classic Statements. OU Press: New York.
West-Burnham, J. (2002) Understanding Quality – The Principles and Practice of Educational Management London: Chapman Publishing
